Witness/Greg

[Guest guest]

> At 04:00 PM 3/20/00 -0700, Roger Isaacs wrote:

>

> >"don't take position as final": When in the state of pure witnessing,

there

> >is no personal "I" to have a position. This witness state is non-varying,

> >unchanging, untouchable by anything external, independant from all

thought,

> >sense, emotion. Though arises as appropriate, however, the witness is

> >separate from thought and unstained/uninfluenced by thought.

> >

> >Please tell me: when "I" is known as absolutely unchanging & non-varying,

> >not associated with thought, or emotion, or sense: HOW can this be less

than

> >final?

>

> G: I can think of a few things about the witness as you describe it here,

> according to this description the witness is not final. But first I

should

> ask, what do you mean by final?

 

R:

"final" was Moller's comment. I think he's suggesting that the "witness

state" is an intermediate stage.

 

Seems to me, seeking ends with witnessing. With witnessing I AM non-dual.

"I" is established as constant & non-changing, unbounded, eternal.

 

HOWEVER! This still leaves a subtle duality because there is the witness &

that which is witnessed, there is the witness and the other. Various things

I've read (Osho, Maharishi) suggest that witnessing evolves further to the

highest non-duality. Here there is no inside/outside, the other is known as

one's Self, all of creation is one's Self. But I can only speculate...

 

I find these distinctions fascinating. One fascination for me is that

non-duality as ultimate oneness apparently is something that becomes

established as an all the time perceptual reality only AFTER Realization.

This emphasizes that thought about nonduality is just more useless

speculative activity of ordinary consciousness, thinking about non-duality

is not a means to achieve it, in fact holding thoughts about non-duality

prevents attaining it.

 

Non-duality theory can be taken as a prescription, where it seems to be

mainly just a description. Of course if you're really close maybe the

description is enough.

 

I've read that certain teachers produce students who are unable to

distinguish between a mere intellectual realization and actual realization.

Apparently they've adopted the description of non-duality as a mood or

another projection of thought. Well... that's NOT it!!

 

Ultimately the "pathless path", the path beyond any effort, the path beyond

any description (see Dan-ji's posts!) must be the way. HOWEVER! Till the

mind is still, various subtle effort (the yogas,tantra) seem appropriate to

prepare the ground. I wondering if it's possible to articulate & delineate

this stuff.

 

Roger